[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed resolution for raw poll data

[Greg Shatan]

Ayden,

What more do you want to learn about the data?  How do you intend to
use/process the data and how/where might you use the end results?  That
might help ground the discussion a bit more.

Thanks.

Greg

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I actually cannot believe we are having this debate.  We accept wholesale
> disclosure of personal data in the WHOIS, and the group of people assembled
> to discuss the matter as a working group and set policy are offended by
> airing their own views, and want anonymity??? Unbelievable.
>
> I support Ayden's comments, not because I don't trust anyone but as a
> matter of principle.
>
> However, this discussion has proven one thing we will not have to argue
> about in future, timestamps and IP address are personal information.  Time
> saved there Chuck!
> Cheers Stephanie
>
>
> On 2017-01-30 08:38, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>
> Well yes, there is that too J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mr Michele Neylon
>
> Blacknight Solutions
>
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>
> https://www.blacknight.com/
>
> http://blacknight.blog/
>
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072 <+353%2059%20918%203072>
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <+353%2059%20918%203090>
>
> Social: http://mneylon.social
>
> Some thoughts: http://ceo.hosting/
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
>
>
> *From: *Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> <sam at lanfranco.net>
> *Date: *Monday 30 January 2017 at 13:25
> *To: *Michele Neylon <michele at blacknight.com> <michele at blacknight.com>,
> Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> <icann at ferdeline.com>, RDS PDP WG
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed resolution for raw poll data
>
>
>
> I might add that without proper agreement by each individual, to
> disclosure of past data would put the WG in violation of the law in a
> number of jurisdictions.
> Also, in a move to disclosure, each participant would have to expressly
> agree (consensus could not be binding on all).
> Those who do not agree would probably have to not participate, since macro
> data and the majority of disclosed results would leave them identifiable.
>
> Sam L.
>
> On 1/30/2017 8:04 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>
> Ayden
>
>
>
> I have no issue with “raw” or “processed” data being shared BUT only for
> future polls where people know that the data is going to be shared in that
> manner.
>
>
>
> Doing it retroactively is not a good idea and I would oppose it.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Michele
>
>
>
>
>
>    < rest deleted >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170130/987e40e1/attachment.html>